|
to RVAguy
Re: Punishment for Calling in a Bomb ThreatI wouldn't be too worried yet. The police are not going to want to announce that the person who called in the bomb threat caused a death. If the person who called it in knows they killed someone, they are going to be much more likely to flee the area or resist capture with violence. I wouldn't get mad about it until after they find the person. |
|
Mr NeutronImpassioned Gibberish Premium Member join:2005-05-30 Gorham, ME |
to lagged9
said by lagged9:It probably was obesity or heart disease that caused the heart attack. Maybe it was my man, Caesar Barber, finally punting big. |
|
dunworkin Premium Member join:2006-12-18 Bellflower, CA
2 recommendations |
to CurtesyFlush
One could also build the same case for yelling "FREE DOUGHNUTS" in a police station. |
|
|
to RVAguy
States vary but most have bomb threat felony laws. But, if someone died, it would be murder via intentional malicious conduct to cause public harm. Yes, a motive is required. But, do you think a jury would care? No. Yes, I could see the Feds using the Terrorism statute, which is life or the death penalty. Here's a case: » seattletimes.nwsource.co ··· 29m.htmlThis lady was a piece of work: "Prosecutors say Gillespie, who is also known as Tamara Lapenckas, has been arrested at the casino for trespassing, assault and resisting arrest. In addition to those convictions, she has convictions for drugs, drunken driving and defrauding a public utility." |
|
SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
to RVAguy
If there was no bomb, morally I'd say involuntary manslaughter. The law, however, says first degree murder. The bomb threat, as I think was previously mentioned here, is a felony in itself. At least that is the case in my state and my neighboring states. The law dictates that if someone dies as a result of committing a crime, then they are automatically charged with first degree murder. Whether one thinks this is excessive or not is irrelevant. The law says she should be charged with it and the law needs to be equally enforced. The charge could be reduced through the court system for extenuating circumstances(like the guy being ready to drop dead before the threat, if such evidence exists). That, however, is the judicial system's role, not the police. If everyone did their role equally and properly, our government might actually work for us. She should pay some penalty though, given the grief this must have caused the family. |
|
fatnesssubtle
join:2000-11-17 fishing |
to RVAguy
Thank you. |
|
JoelC707 Premium Member join:2002-07-09 Lanett, AL |
to RVAguy
The news articles don't make this clear though everyone here seems to be leaning one way. The person who called in the "bomb threat", was this the person who supposedly planted the bomb or some innocent bystander who saw a suspicious package and called 911 and they treated it as a "bomb threat"? If the caller was the person who supposedly planted the bomb then yes they should be charged with whatever the law will allow. After all that was probably his motive all along and there never was a bomb in the first place. If the caller was Joe Public that saw the suspicious package then no I don't think any charges should be even considered. If it was Joe Public I could understand being brought in for questioning to make sure I wasn't the one who supposedly planted the bomb. But if charges were brought up my first reaction would be "fine, no more Good Samaritan from me, I'll just let your building possibly blow up next time". |
|
fatnesssubtle
join:2000-11-17 fishing |
to RVAguy
said by RVAguy:The family is the source for this info. Witnesses at suddenlink state he was helping with the evacuation and even reports of looking for the bomb. Again, this is all 3rd party info, so I cannot say for sure this is true. It seems that if this is even partially true, it's information the police do have. Whereas if it's just guesswork and perhaps a reaction based on grief, the family would be more likely to talk to others, not to the police. The news article either a day or 2 after the bomb threat did say that police had determined the death was unrelated. It sounded quite certain. And the family knows who called in the threat, but the police don't know yet? I'm not saying that's not the case but it seems odd. |
|
craig70130 Premium Member join:2004-04-27 New Orleans, LA |
to RVAguy
It's not involuntary manslaughter. Calling in the threat was voluntary.
The charge would be negligent homocide. |
|
tvtekLive life to its fullest Premium Member join:2004-03-07 Walnut Creek, CA 1 edit |
tvtek to tcope
Premium Member
2009-Jul-23 12:52 pm
to tcope
said by tcope:If in the commision of a crime there is a death, that person can be held responsible for that death even if they did not intent or know that it would happen. I know this as I've seen every Law and Order episode. The person is guilty who called in the threat! I know, I saw it on Law and Order!....Send the trial to Judge Judy!...lol |
|
RVAguy Premium Member join:2006-01-05 Richmond, VA |
to fatness
The Rocky Mount Telegram isn't very reliable on a lot of stories. They try to sound like a legitimate paper, but they are not.
Again, I just look at the facts - bomb threat is called in - man dies of heart attack - both on the same day - coincidence? Let the jury decide - The last story reported isn't the latest news from the police. The paper hasn't followed up on the story... |
|
mrkevinKnowledge comes, but wisdom lingers. Premium Member join:2007-08-07 Aurora, ME |
to RVAguy
Well obviously the man already has some issues with his heart. So I say no to Involuntarily Manslaughter and yes to Domestic Terrorism. after all the reason was to 'terrorize" |
|
tcope Premium Member join:2003-05-07 Sandy, UT |
to craig70130
said by craig70130:It's not involuntary manslaughter. Calling in the threat was voluntary. The charge would be negligent homocide. I'm no attorney, nor do I understand why this is really an issue since it's up to a DA to determine what the charge is... but the person's initial action is not what needs to be considered voluntary or otherwise... as what 1st person action is not voluntary. Being a voluntary action would apply to what caused the death. If the person calling in bomb threat meant to cause someone to die from a heart attack, it's voluntary. In this case the person did not mean for this person to die of a heart attack but is still guilty of causing the death. |
|
|
to TearAbite
said by TearAbite:If he was charged with the man's death, i'm sure his attorney would argue that if the stress of evacuating a building could kill the guy, then had the bomb-threat not happened, he probably would have died next weekend mowing his lawn.. The future event would be purely speculative and would not make for a good argument. By the same analogy, if someone was shot during a robbery, the defense could argue that even if he wasn't shot, he probably would have died the next time someone did. |
|
|
|
to dcurrey
said by dcurrey:Where did yelling FIRE in a theater come from. I was thinking along those lines myself. Surly must be some origin to it. "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a quote from Supreme Court Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes in a First Amendment ruling limiting free speech in circumstances likely to cause harm. My personal favorite quote on the subject: "Your free speech and expression ends at the junction of my nose and your fist."...but I don't know who actually originated that one. |
|
POBRes Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium Member join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA |
POB to RVAguy
Premium Member
2009-Jul-23 8:06 pm
to RVAguy
said by RVAguy:A man had a heart attack presumably brought on by the stress of trying to help others evacuate and looking for the bomb himself. He is now dead and has left behind a wife and 7 children. Blame cannot be irrevocably placed on the idiot caller bomb threat. The guy was probably a walking time bomb himself. You don't just stroke out over a telephone call if you aren't already in really bad health. The way I see it - If he didn't stroke out over a stupid call then he probably would have stroked out over something else at some other point. It wasn't an "if" as much as it was a "when." Personally, I'd rather see someone like this drop dead in an office and not cause harm to anyone else rather than the same person drop dead behind the steering wheel and/or operating other heavy machinery and end up killing anyone else who happened to be unfortunate enough to be in the same place at the same time as this guy was. |
|
fatnesssubtle
join:2000-11-17 fishing |
to RVAguy
said by RVAguy:Again, I just look at the facts - bomb threat is called in - man dies of heart attack - both on the same day - coincidence? Let the jury decide - What is there for a jury to decide? There's no suspect apparently. The last story reported isn't the latest news from the police. The paper hasn't followed up on the story... What's the latest news from the police? |
|
|
to Selenia
said by Selenia:The law dictates that if someone dies as a result of committing a crime, then they are automatically charged with first degree murder. Why doesn't that apply to drunk drivers who kill someone? |
|
SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2009-Jul-23 10:57 pm
said by Bobcat79:said by Selenia:The law dictates that if someone dies as a result of committing a crime, then they are automatically charged with first degree murder. Why doesn't that apply to drunk drivers who kill someone? That would be vehicular manslaughter, which is a felony. Not as bad as murder, but still very serious. Don't ask me why there is any difference. Ask your congressman. |
|
MemphisPCGuyTaking Care Business Premium Member join:2004-05-09 Memphis, TN |
to dcurrey
said by dcurrey:Where did yelling FIRE in a theater come from. I was thinking along those lines myself. Surly must be some origin to it. I believe it originated from a Supreme Court ruling on free speech. Wiki Says; "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a frequent misquoting of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The misquote fails to mention falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from truthful but also dangerous. The quote is used as an example of speech which serves no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. |
|
|
to JerryTimes
said by JerryTimes:It should be involuntary manslaughter. There's nothing involuentary about it. If you call in a bomb threat, and someone dies as a result, it should be 2nd degree murder. The caller made a conscious choice to call in a bomb threat. The health of the victim is immaterial unless it can be proven that the victim was ill (as in dying on the floor) before the call was made. |
|
NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills Americans Premium Member join:2002-03-05 |
to dcurrey
Re: Death is not linked to threatYes, at a minimum I would assume that whomever called this in could be charged with making "terroristic threats". It's disappointing to think that the police might just treat it as no big deal. |
|
ropeguru Premium Member join:2001-01-25 Mechanicsville, VA |
to RVAguy
Re: Punishment for Calling in a Bomb Threatsaid by RVAguy:Thats a good point, however leave that to the DA decide, not the police deciding not to investigate. Also, put it to a jury to see. But not doing anything shouldn't be an option... We don't know but maybe the spoke to the DA you advised not to pursue. But, we do not know and we certainly cannot say that the PD decided on their own not to investigate. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, Prospice Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Onion, NJ |
to NOVA_Guy
Re: Death is not linked to threatsaid by NOVA_Guy:Yes, at a minimum I would assume that whomever called this in could be charged with making "terroristic threats". It's disappointing to think that the police might just treat it as no big deal. Its a terroristic threat no matter of someone dies or not. I guess its terrorism if the *intent* is to cause panic and death (like calling fire in a crowded theater") |
|
|
to ender7074
Re: Punishment for Calling in a Bomb ThreatBut it's not because if he's calling in a fake bomb threat he isn't intentionally doing something that could kill someone. He was doing something to scare people, which ended up with someone dying which wasn't his intention. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, Prospice Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Onion, NJ |
AVD
Premium Member
2009-Aug-3 3:48 pm
said by JerryTimes:But it's not because if he's calling in a fake bomb threat he isn't intentionally doing something that could kill someone. He was doing something to scare people, which ended up with someone dying which wasn't his intention. If you rob a bank, and the teller dies of a hear attack, you and the getaway driver are guilty of murder. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
19579823 (banned)An Awesome Dude join:2003-08-04 |
to RVAguy
Re: Punishment for Calling in a Bomb ThreatYes indeed!!!
Anyone who is affected by someone who does something like this IS JUST AS GUILTY AS IF THEY HAD DONE IT THEMSELVES!!
Please keep us updated on it! |
|
67845017 (banned) join:2000-12-17 Naperville, IL 1 edit |
to JerryTimes
Look up the eggshell plaintiff or eggshell skull rule. You have to take the victim as you find them.
IMO in this case, a colorable argument can be made for 2nd degree murder. |
|
joako Premium Member join:2000-09-07 /dev/null |
to RVAguy
I think no, old people worry too much. WHY would you look for a bomb get the hell out of there. |
|